persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages, and ii) States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff. 138. Likewise, the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States to adopt special measures of protection with regard to health286 and social security287, which should be even greater for children with disabilities.288 Regarding children with disabilities, the Committee for the Rights of the Child has stated that: Attainment of the highest possible standard of health as well as access and affordability of quality healthcare is an inherent right for all children. Children with disabilities are often left out because of several challenges, including discrimination, inaccessibility due to the lack of information and/or financial resources, transportation, geographic distribution and physical access to health care facilities.289. 139. Having established these general standards, the Court considers that since Sebastián was a child and is currently an adult with disabilities, it is necessary to analyze the dispute between the parties based on an interpretation of the rights of the American Convention and their related obligations, in light of the special protection measures stemming from those standards. This framework provides mechanisms to guarantee and adequately protect the rights of persons with disabilities, in conditions of equality, taking into account their specific needs. C) Reasonable term Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 140. The Commission argued that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Sebastián and Danilo Furlan, due to “the unwarranted delay in the civil proceedings for damages.” 141. The representatives alleged that the State violated “Articles 8(1) and 25 in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 19 [of the American Convention] and the corresponding articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Arts. 2, 3, 12” given that it did not take the measures necessary to offer Sebastián Furlan and his family “a prompt, timely, and effective remedy,” thereby violating the guarantees of due process and the right to adequate legal protection.” They added that this situation was aggravated by the failure to comply with “the duty to provide Sebastián Furlan with the special measures of protection that he required as a child with a disability.” 142. The State asked the Court to declare “that it has not violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, inasmuch as “the delays that [...] occurred in the framework of the civil proceedings [for damages], were not attributable to the State of Argentina.” 286 Cf. Article 24 Convention on the Rights of the Child. 287 Cf. Article 26 Convention on the Rights of the Child. 288 Cf. Article 23 Convention on the Rights of the Child. 289 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 9, para. 51. 48